What do Monergism and Synergism mean and why are they important?

This morning's Southern Baptist Sunday School lesson was from Exodus 25. "Speak to the people of Israel, that they take for me a contribution. From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me." (v. 2) particularly caught my attention.

Was this particular willingness to give something the givers were especially created for, was the willingness illusionary, or were there other less definable, less obvious dynamics at work?

 

I once visited a Baptist church that presented itself as a Calvinist congregation. The service, as I remember it, was coldly orthodox. The service ended with no mention of the need for salvation. I left wondering if the doctrine of salvation was above and beyond mention, or if maybe an individual's salvation is so much of God that even mention of it might be misinterpreted as giving any amount of credit to the saved.

I believe that that's the idea of Calvinism to lots of people.

 

I've read and am rereading "The Inerrant Word," edited by John MacArthur. The writers keep pounding on the theme that the Bible, alone, is the inerrant word of God and worthy of undivided devotion. Calvin's Institutes and any surviving writings of Arminius or his disciples don't qualify. While skillful theologians may offer sophisticated elucidations of God's word, still they are the products of finite minds and limited knowledge.

I tend to agree with those who recognize both the Creator's sovereignty and His creatures' responsibility. I don't think I could espouse either to the total exclusion of the other.

 

Hello Fin,
The preaching of the cross is the invitation.most sermons link to the cross.
No need to make emotional appeals to the sinners flesh to do something. A sinner being drawn by the Spirit will savingly trust Jesus hearing the word preached.

 

Does a person receive regeneration before or after they hear the gospel?

 

You are "generated" the moment you are "gendered" or "born". A person is ''regenerated'' at the moment they are "born again"; at the moment they heed the gospel by believing on Jesus Christ.

 

In Revelation 3 Jesus called the church at Sardis dead and then commanded them to wake up. It is clear that the use of the word dead in that passage does not meet the definition imposed on by those who believe dead means total inability.

As I have mentioned recently the prodigal son was termed dead and lost. The story of the prodigal shows the understanding of dead to mean separated because of sin and rebellion. Isaiah 59:2 supports this understanding that we are separated from God because of sin. It does not say either directly or my implication that the issue with sinners is total inability.The idea of total inability is foreign to scripture.

Further, Paul tells us to consider ourselves dead (nekros) to sin. Surely one would not interpret that to mean total inability when we all know we all still sin. However, the correct intention and understanding of the word dead (separated) would work here as well. We can consider ourselves separated from sin but we would never say we consider ourselves totally unable to sin.

 

Yet another ad hominem post, devoid of content addressing the many conditional covenants found in scripture.
According to Icon, I am the only one who believes we are saved through faith, rather than saved and given faith.
According to Icon, I am the only one who believes Christ laid down is life as a ransom for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.
According to Icon, I am the only one who believes we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election.

 

You are not.

 

I see we are on page 6 with the Cals defining all the terms, and looking at the issues through their presuppositions. And then we can toss in a bunch of ad homenim posts whose purpose is to disparage.

Lets back up to God making conditional covenants, i.e. if you repent, I will relent. Since God establishes the conditional, and determines who, if anyone, meets the condition, God's action is monergistic. God does not need for anyone to repent, and repenting does not cause God to rely upon man. A conditional covenant does not mean God is not all powerful.

On the other hand, you will see posts where Cals claim if God does not compel the repent, God is depending on man's actions.
Such is the absurdity of their argument.

God has mercy on whom He has mercy, and if God chooses to have mercy on those whose faith He has credited as righteousness, that salvation is monergistic. For salvation does not depend on the person who wills, but on God having mercy. Thus the Cal argument has once again been shown to be unbiblical and unstudied.

And I see a few more false theology claims have been made, like we are regenerated in order to have faith in Christ. Folks, we are regenerated (originated again) when we arise in Christ a new creation. No one is regenerated or made alive before they are transferred into Christ. Note "we are made live together with Christ." So yet another example of taking a vague term and redefining it according to Calvinism.

And Fin, pay no attention to all the disparagement, its par for the course.

 

Thanks !!

 

Whenever it seems "everyone else" is going after something, I like to take a step back and look at why.......
Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment: But Just like God told Elijah in 1 Kings 19.....you're not the only one.

 

Calivinistic, fatalistic, "monergistic" beliefs. In response to this.........

Who cares what "everyone else" does or does not believe as long as you have the truth? Follow the herd if you want, your choice.